Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that the tool will not tell which edition is in force, because adoption is local, and that the answer instead names the deciding authority.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core function stated first and the limitation second. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies purpose, scope and the key expectation gap (no edition resolution), giving an agent enough to call it correctly; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the detail enum and the market/subject/calculator formats. The description only loosely maps to 'one kind of work' (subject) and 'one market' without adding syntax or edge-case guidance for detail or calculator, making 3 the correct baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Finds'), an exact resource ('which family of building codes or standards governs one kind of work') and a precise scope ('one market', with the market options enumerated). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_calculator or get_sources, though it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Context is implied by the 'one kind of work in one market' scoping and the explicit limitation that it does not resolve the edition in force, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives such as search, fetch, or get_sources. The caveat 'adoption is local, and the answer names who decides' tells the agent what to expect rather than when to call it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.